level of participation in the management or operation' of the cooperative"). Although this holding applies only to RICO liability, the court did distinguish between defendants responsible for managing an enterprise from those who merely provide professional services to it.
(n390) This argument is the basis of many challenges of cap statutes on equal protection grounds. In a medical malpractice context victims suffering severe injury argue that the cap discriminates against them in favor of those less severely injured. See Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Assoc., NO. 89-1087, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 1001 (Ala. Sept. 27, 1991), at 17; Carson v. Maurer, 424 A.2d 825, 837 (N.H. 1980). But see infra note 394 and accompanying text.
(n391) See LIKIERMAN REPORT, supra note 99, at 29.
(n392) Id. The proposed statute called for a minimum statutory cap of A$200,000 and when the audit fee becomes in excess of A$1m, the cap maximum is the greater of A$20m or ten times the fee.
(n393) Id. Various details such as the length of required PII periods, deductibles, holding company clients, and liability of principals and employees "who were not knowingly concerned" with willful conduct are also discussed.
The Likierman steering committee concluded that "none of the study teams believe it is appropriate at this stage.... [W]ithin each profession [auditing, surveying, construction] there are wide variations between the fee paid and the damage which can be caused by negligence." Id. at 7.
(n394) The fact that the victim of auditor negligence can anticipate ex ante the exposure to harm she faces distinguishes this case from medical malpractice under which victims have no similar ex ante options.
(n395) See supra notes 72-91 and accompanying text.
(n396) This is Robert Chatov's suggestion, supra note 89 and accompanying text.
(n397) It might be argued that it would advance efficiency to permit governmental discretion to match individual auditors with specific enterprises. We are more comfortable relying on the luck of the draw to make these matches, once an accounting firm is deemed qualified to handle a predetermined class of enterprises.
(n398) See supra notes 114-17 and accompanying text.
(n399) See supra respectively notes 97-98, 130-31 and accompanying text.
(n400) Sometimes internal pressures for accounting-consulting separation occur within large accounting firms. A case in point is reported in Management Brief: Civil War at Arthur Andersen, THE ECONOMIST, Aug. 1991, at 66. Although the management consulting business at Arthur Andersen grew much faster than accounting in the